17 February 2013 2:20 AM

I genuinely fear that I will go to prison before I die, for writing or saying something that is no longer allowed. I have met quite a lot of people who hate me and my views so much that they would very much like this to happen.

Our society is already a hundred times more intolerant than it was when I was born. In recent years, police officers have actually questioned prominent people because of opinions they have expressed, a thing unthinkable even 30 years ago.

Of course the main threat to free speech is not prison but the loss of your job, as anyone in the public sector knows very well.

But the limits on what can be said shrink all the time, and the powers of the police and prosecutors grow.

At some point these two curves may meet, and I may find myself on the receiving end of one of those nasty, well-publicised dawn raids that the police like so much.

My only hope, if this happens, will be in the courtroom. That is one reason why I urge you not be seduced by calls to limit the freedom of defence lawyers.

Witnesses do lie and make things up. Juries are often pretty feeble and too easily led. Since they abolished the property qualification and brought the age limit down to 18 (it may soon be 16), the chances of having your case heard by educated or experienced people have shrivelled.

And since the disgraceful introduction of majority verdicts, one or two wise jurors cannot hold out for long against a lazy, bored majority who think there’s no smoke without fire, and want to go home.[columnistModule]

So unless defence lawyers have full freedom to question prosecution witnesses, the defendant in a modern British trial might as well go straight to jail and get on with his sentence.

Like any civilised person, I grieve at the death of Frances Andrade, who killed herself after giving evidence against Michael Brewer, during which she was vigorously cross-examined.

May she rest in peace. But I object strongly to the way in which many people have used this event to argue for limits on the freedom to cross-examine.

We do not really know why she took her life, though I would point out that, like a frightening number of suicides, she was taking so-called ‘antidepressant’ drugs, which are known in some cases to promote suicidal feelings in those who take them.

Think of this another way. A trial is not just an argument after which everyone goes home. If the accused is found guilty, he goes to prison and – if he has until then been a respectable person, who will suffer greatly in jail – his life is more or less at an end. Some people deserve this. But their guilt must be proved first. If trials become mere formalities, in which we go through the motions of justice while forgetting its principles, we will be a tyranny.Your starter for ten... how many questions would Paxo get right?

*******************************************************************

Your starter for ten... how many questions would Paxo get right?

Jeremy Paxman was exceptionally rude to University Challenge contestant Tom Tyszczuk Smith when he got an answer badly wrong.

And he knew it, which was why, when the student soon afterwards got a difficult answer right, Mr Paxman beamed a 2,000-watt ingratiating simper at him. Mr Paxman does have a more conciliatory side, as he revealed when he once hand-delivered a letter of apology to Peter Mandelson.

The thing is, Mr Paxman already knew that Tom T-S was an unusually gentle, diffident and polite young man. They’d met before – last October, in a previous heat.

Near the start of that programme, Tom T-S pressed his buzzer and then realised (I’ve done the same thing) that he had completely forgotten what he meant to say. After a ghastly silence, he whispered, very touchingly: ‘I’m terribly sorry, it’s gone.’ Even my stony heart went out to him. For some time afterwards, the poor youth hung his head in what appeared to be hopeless embarrassment.He obviously knows a lot, and has the courage to risk mockery and scorn by going on the programme, but he is not confident. So it seems odd that his particular stumble should attract such scorn.

Mr Paxman really should not act so superior. I suspect his historical knowledge is quite patchy. I’m sure he’s as baffled by the science questions he asks as almost everyone else is, even though he maintains a stern demeanour.

His pronunciation of German words is comically bad. Despite this, he always refers to the Chinese author Jung Chang as if she were German, wrongly calling her ‘Yoong Chang’. And the other day he mixed up the 21st and the 121st Psalms, which a Cambridge English graduate shouldn’t do.Corruption wasn't policewoman April Casburn's real crimePolicewoman April Casburn is in prison for supposed corruption, but the only evidence against her was from a newspaper reporter

************************************************************

Corruption wasn't policewoman April Casburn's real crime

There really ought to be a huge fuss about the conviction, on the feeblest grounds, of policewoman April Casburn.

She is in prison for supposed corruption, but the only evidence against her was from a newspaper reporter who said ‘she must have asked for money’, because that was what he put in an email to colleagues after talking to her. ‘Must have’. Hardly a ringing declaration, is it?

Against her repeated denials and years of good character (she didn’t need money and was an experienced and well-regarded officer of some distinction) this does not seem to me to be beyond reasonable doubt.

I suspect her offence was that she talked to a newspaper.

Well, if that’s so, should this conviction and sentence be allowed to stand?

Now consider this. A youth, now 17, admits that he struck Anthony Owen, 68, in the face. Dr Owen, a distinguished cancer specialist, is thought to have then fallen and hit his head on the ground. He died. The youth, who was with friends at the time of the incident, cannot be named for legal reasons.

He says he acted in self-defence, and was scared of the 68-year-old doctor. The Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to charge him.

Do you want to live in a country where these sorts of things can happen?

Now we see clearly that the promise of the NHS, of treatment ‘free at the point of use’, is a sham. In return for great piles of taxes, they’ll hand out pills and bandages when you’re still reasonably young and fit. But as soon as you really need to be looked after, they starve you to death, or turf you out and make you sell your house to pay for ‘care’. Just like the insurance companies, they slip away when the going gets tough.

I find myself rather admiring the spirit of Cait Reilly, the young woman who objected to being ordered to work unpaid at Poundland. She acted as a free British person ought to act. I didn’t join in the jeers against her when her action first came to light, and I’m very glad.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David Wiseacre - I'm astonished that you failed to mention perhaps the most famous book penned in prison whilst its author was serving a sentence. It's title was "Mein Kampf" and the memory of its author indeed lives on.

What I saw on last nights Question Time was a terrified panel and terrified/confused audience due to the effect of social engineering. Peter Hitchens should have laughed at D Abbots nonsense response in trying to cover for non English speaking jurors, but he was brow beaten (by the zeitgeist and his own survival impulse) to remain poker faced. It was down to Hestletine to inject some reality in the debate and oppose D Abbots attempt covering for non english speakers on jurys, but incredibly, no one in the audience dared clap him, incase they seemed to their fellow peers, racist. What a mess we have got ourselves in.

Jan Watkinson.
Have no fear . the White and proud are still here Jan . When one has a chairperson in charge that use his father as a step up. Then this sort of outlook prevails.
Dimbleberry is the archetypical wet lefty.
And yes the audience were picked and seeded as per usual. And again yes the great work of Wren was used. Money changers in the temple comes to mind.

I have just watched Question Time and infuriated because most of the panelists were apologising for being white and british- why. I am whiteand English is this something to now be ashamed of ,are we now some sub-species that are, because we are white, racist?

@ James Hodson
I believe it is random . I'm sure there are some that think in important trials it could be seeded. That would involve too many, and therefore been whistleblown over the years.
I think I read here, many long trials where exclusion is easier. They are peopled by the unemployed and retired. This really is not good. Not that either group are lacking, but its not a true cross section of society.
Some fraud trials should have people with accounting knowledge. asa they tend to be complex.
The Justice system is a bit like our FA. the touch line facilities are in place .But not used. Fear of technology. fear the judge like the referee becomes unemployed. and in most cases unemployable.

@ James Hodson,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I reread Mr Hitchens' Twelve Angry Men chapter as well last night and thought again about the desirability of property or education qualifications for selecting jurors. As far as property qualifications go, would one get a fairer verdict from investment bankers or monks? And as for education, surely the solution is to improve the education received by potential jurors instead of winnowing out too much chaff.
From personal experience on a jury, I found that the assortment of people from varied walks of life brought differing insights and helped us come to a verdict that we were proud of. It was my first experience of the value of crowd wisdom.

May I also suggest a recent article in the Michigan Law Review by Rufus Whitman entitled "The Scottish Jury, Landmarks in the History of Jury Trial"? It's available online.

I am 48 but have never been called to serve on a jury. Is the selection process random?

Posted by: James Hodson | 19 February 2013 at 06:00 AM

I used to wonder about that myself for many years, then suddenly when I was 51 the letter dropped onto the mat. It was a very interesting experience and in the event I was glad that it hadn't happened when I was 18. I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now, as the song goes. I don't think anyone under 30 should serve on a jury, except possibly Juke Box Jury.

Or course, I cannot be sure that the thought processes of any juror are sound, or ever have been. See mikebarnes's comments about his late sister-in-law and emotions. My point is that with majority verdicts it is too likely that a powerful voice will have too much influence. PH didn't call the relevant chapter, which, incidentally, I had just finished reading when I posted, Twelve Angry Persons, for nothing.

I accept your point that the two dissenting jurors might have been closer to the 50% mark than being 100% sure. I'll try to find "The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: The Theological Roots of Criminal Law".

Perhaps I didn't put my thoughts across clearly. I'm not in favour majority verdicts and would rather the accused be set free or at least be sent for a retrial than be convicted because of a juror's wish to go and watch Eastenders.

Peter - look on the bright side - just think how much time you would have to write a decent book whilst in prison (one not beginning its title with the word Abolition). Cervantes' "Don Qixote", Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress", Wilde's "De Profundis and Defoe's "Hymn to the Pilary" were all penned whilst their author's were serving sentences - as was the Marquis de Sade's "Justine" (whilst he was in The Bastille -though I doubt the contents of the last title would appeal to you). Your memory would live on - long after The Mail on Sunday's eventual death.

@ John Hodson
No your wrong in part. The miners whom PH alludes to in a later post. They picked off many who were best describe as number two.s . Scargill wasn't touched justice wise. And if the miners can be beaten as they were , Who's around today with their righteous indignation, funds ,and mobile army.
When Mr Griffin appeared at Leeds Crown Court . Hundreds of supporters gathered ,flying flags singing hymns and most importantly behaving themselves. I was there and can attest its the truth. It didn't change one iota of the States mind . Although on him being found NOT guilty the establishment went wild . Even Brown the then Chancellor said the law needed changing .
One little guy getting an honest jury, to see through the hate directed at him. No mean feat, But I digress
Today those that admire PH couldn't get a tenth of the support needed were he arrested . In fact I think sometime soon he may actually challenge the establishment to arrest him. And wouldn't want to much made of it. As long as he got his chance to speak in his defence.

PH thinks Professional jurists would become case hardened and therefore pro guilt . The opposite may be true . But the one important point is they become cute to the ploys both sides use . And Judges too.
For, to an insider the justice system is but a game. played out in the halls of private school debating chambers. To the outsider looking in .With careful use of their thinking muscle. it can be seen.
That alone makes for professional jury's a no no.
The equation used is this If the Establishment, Parliament , are for it .then we the people should be against it. So if at some point the establishment become in favour of professional jury's, I will retire from that debate. For they will have conceived its bastard child.
The one PH fears.

First they put the miners on the dole .then all blue collar worker s felt the breeze of unemployment . Now those with degrees and a debt find it increasingly difficult to find work .All the unskilled work is a race between incomers and those already here
I see a revolution coming . Although I thought it might be here sometime ago.

I never said that I expected Mr Hitchens should “slavishly” follow a left or right agenda. Of course we are all able to stand on our own merit but that is not the point here. Mr H in his early days was of the extreme left and is now considered by those who read him to be on the far right and indeed most of his views tend to support that judgement. So when he suddenly prints an opinion which I and I would think most people would accept as being leftish suggests to me that he retains some of his past loyalties. In the case of Cait Reilly one either supports her crusade or one doesn't. In my view to support her is to side with the principles of all those hard line lefties who shout down the laws of this country. How Peter (and presumably yourself) can support her “cause” I find bewildering and bordering on the anarchic. You ask whether there are views I hold that are not orthodox right wing. My answer is yes for I consider my views to swing between the far right and the centre of the political spectrum. However I can never imagine supporting a far left cause purely because that side of the political spectrum is wholly anathema to me.

I very much doubt that Poundland made a great deal of profit out of employing "workfare" (sic) recipients. The low productivity and excessive supervision required for people who are compelled into such situations would see to that. I speak from personal experience (as an employer, albeit on a community project).

I hope Cait eventually gets a job comensurate with her degree. Perhaps she should have checked out the job market before joining academe. (Although when she did so, the Brown "boom" had not yet exploded.)

"I realise now that I should never be surprised at Mr Hitchens wild swinging from left to right of the political spectrum....I really am beginning to think Mr H is totally undecided where his loyalties lay but on the other hand perhaps he is deliberately working us all up for his amusement."

Does it occur to you that Mr Hitchens might actually be able to make his mind up on individual issues without following a 'right' or 'left' agenda? Many of the problems with our current political set-up are caused by politicians who slavishly follow the 'party line' rather than thinking for themselves. Political parties used to be broad churches where individuals were bound by agreement on general principles, but were able to hold widely different views on particular issues. Now they are highly-centralised collections of party 'yes-men. I, for one, don't think that is an improvement. Is there no opinion you hold that isn't orthodox 'right-wing'?

Why should my taxes subsidise the entirely privately owned Poundland (by Warburg Pincus, which has a market cap of $30bn)? If Poundland wants staff, it should pay them itself.

What if I have shares in one of Poundland's rivals? In that case, the state would be giving my investment's competitor a large advantage.

How big a business could you build when some of your labour costs are nil?

If Ms Reilly wants my taxes, I'd prefer her not to distort the private sector. That doesn't mean she should be picking up litter in return for free money. But that would be preferable to the current arrangement. As would job sharing with George Osborne.

@ James Hodson,
How can you presume that the evidence was not overwhelming and presume that the dissenting jurors were reasonable? Would you agree that Edward Bushel was a "reasonable" juror? The secrecy of the jury room helps guarantee free trials. As the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt , no juror needs to be 100% in doubt, merely to have doubt. This was recently made clear by the Appeal Court in a judgement that stated the jury "must be sure that the defendant is guilty".
May I suggest that you read "The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: The Theological Roots of Criminal Law" by James Q Whitman. Reasonable Doubt was introduced into the Common Law in the 1780s in order to increase the conviction rate because jurors were afraid of the vengeance of a wrathful God on their souls if they wrongly convicted an innocent man.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.